Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School & Child Care

The Special Education Process for Children with Epilepsy: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Selected Cases
Free and Appropriate Public Education
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S.
176 (1982)
The Court held that an elementary school student who was deaf was not entitled to a sign
language interpreter in school. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA)
[now IDEA] requirement of a “free appropriate public education” is satisfied when the
student is provided with personalized instruction with sufficient support services to
permit him or her to benefit educationally from that instruction. If the student is educated
in regular classrooms, as in this case, the IEP should be “reasonably calculated” to enable
him or her to achieve passing marks and to advance from grade to grade. The EHA was
meant to open the door of public education to students with disabilities, rather than to
guarantee them any particular substantive level of education once they are inside the
school. The state is not required to maximize the potential of each student with
disabilities commensurate with the opportunity provided to non-disabled students. In
EHA suits, the court must first decide if the state has complied with statutory procedures,
and then to decide if the IEP developed through such procedures is reasonably calculated
to enable the student to receive educational benefits. If so, the state has met the
requirements of the EHA. 39
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District, 875 F.2d 952 (1 st Cir. 1989),
cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 519 (1989)
Education includes the teaching of basic functional life skills as well as traditional
academic skills. A school system cannot refuse to provide any education to a child with
disabilities on the basis that the child cannot benefit from educational services. The EHA
mandates that all children receive a free appropriate public education, regardless of the
severity of their disabilities. A child’s ability to achieve academic benefit from such
services is irrelevant. All children, regardless of their ability to achieve academic benefit
from a public education have the right to a free, appropriate public education.
39 Many attorneys who represent children and families in special education matters believe that the Rowley
holding has been effectively nullified by the No Child Left Behind Act because of its emphasis on adequate
yearly progress and achievement for all students. While a discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of
this manual, it is clear that because of No Child Left Behind, the “floor” of appropriateness established by
Rowley is higher than it was when the case was decided.
59